Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: Engine upgrades..results and opinions from owner..Like Nordland etc

  1. #1
    Member RocketRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    410

    Default Engine upgrades..results and opinions from owner..Like Nordland etc

    ocn....Just read about it..

    See http://www.backcountrypilot.org/foru...hp?f=14&t=3130

    More info from AOPA abt engine STCs;

    http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/skylane0012.html

    <<While the 230-hp O-470-series engines are regarded as dependable, there are a number of options to consider when it's time to re-engine a 182. Texas Skyways in Boerne, Texas; Air Plains Services of Wellington, Kansas; and John Jewell Aircraft Inc., of Holly Springs, Mississippi, all have STCs to install 300-hp IO-520 and -550 engines. Peterson's Performance Plus, of El Dorado, Kansas, has an STC to install the ultradependable 260-hp fuel-injected IO-470 engine (see "Peterson's 260SE is a Different Breed of 182"). Owners who prefer carburetion over fuel-injection can gain horsepower increases through STCed engine replacements from Texas Skyways; Norland Aircraft Services, of Norland, Ontario, Canada; and P. Ponk Aviation of Camano Island, Washington.

    More horsepower will increase your airplane's climb performance, but claims for quantum increases in cruise speeds should be viewed with a grain of salt. The laws of physics related to aircraft speed increases are ruled by the cube law, which says that doubling the horsepower of an engine will increase the speed by the cube root of two, or 1.26 (26 percent). By this law, removing the 230-hp engine and installing a 300-hp engine (a 24-percent power increase) could increase the maximum speed by 9 percent. Fuel-injected engine installations will prevent carburetor icing, which is one of the 182's Achilles' heels. Consolidated Fuel Systems, a division of Kelly Aerospace, in Montgomery, Alabama, has bought the old Rajay turbocharger installations that, according to the original STC, can be installed on any of the carbureted O-470-series-engines in 182s.>>

    For the here and now;

    My k-model is burning to much oil and the 2nd oil analysis aught to help someone diagnose it better.

    I wld like the engine to be FI. That wld allow more leaning for more fuel savings. If i don't have to give up the MoGas I'll prob do it down the road.

    I plan to go to floats later, prob EDO 2870s to start. I've been told by several 180 pilots when TBO time comes to upgrade with larger cylinders to add 50cc more. Not sure what HP increase that is tho. It will be interesting to see the float flying improvements from the stock 0-470 to an upgraded HP engine.

    So ocnfish - Tell me how much over gross you can go with that Norland upgrade. Can ya carry more or just carry more faster by abt9%?

    BTW the '59 is 2650-lbs empty. Close..

    Rick

  2. #2
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    Google pponk.
    More hp yet

    common 180 upgrade

    illiamna in 1:05

  3. #3
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    Btw I wouldn't change a thing till u have to. Fly it.

    Pponk Runs 160 mph in my 75 180 (weighs 1650) but it's a little more than just adding bigger cylinders.

    Texas skyways does similar mod.

    470k is good candidate for pponk. 4 cw crank reqd

  4. #4
    Member ocnfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    542

    Default Not worried about gross weight increase ...

    "So ocnfish - Tell me how much over gross you can go with that Norland upgrade."

    And .... 2650 is your gross wt.

    If I wanted 2950 gw I would get the Wing-x tip tank option. It would also fit in my hangar with 40 x 16 ft doors. BTW, my skywagon is just like all the rest when considering the stated GW vs what we all know they can haul ... enough said.

    My old 0-470 was the perfect engine, burned no oil for the entire 15 years and 800 hours I used it, Warner Reamer overhaul in 92 ... Flew from here to Palm Springs and added 1 qt at Redbluff Ca, I am sure most of the oil went out through the breather. When we got to Palm Springs changed out to 100 W because of the heat. Last annual the low cylinder compression was 78/80.

    Because the last overhaul was 15 yrs ago I decided to look into engine upgrade and went through the same drill you just went through. I thought the Nordland was the best choice, for me, and I could spend my bucks here in Alaska and keep some local guys / buddies employed. I also liked the idea of keeping the original "simple" fuel system and with the new lower weight for a 2007 McCaully C-230 prop the balance of the plane was unchanged. The speed increase I have noted is best at altitude, like I said 22 squared at 7,000 calm air 140kts / 160 mph. I now keep up with 185's and 206's. If I back off on throttle fuel burn seems to be about the same as the 0-470.

    Although my plane has NDH it was wrecked in the early 60's, but whoever put it back together did a great job because there are no added alleron trim tabs, etc. and files with a tap on the rudder every now and then in calm air. Airframe is important to speed I have seen junkers that can manage only about 125 to 130 mph, they are not addressing the air properly. Believe it or not reskinning the horizontal stab, thicker metal, added a few mph, old one was probably flexing at top end. I have a sportsman stol and strut fairings that seem to make a difference. I am thinking about junking the XP mod tail wheel because it acts like a second rudder out back and can virbate when it first touches the ground and torques the 1" stinger and takes a kick on the rudder to get to break and swivel.

    Like I said the Nordand STC appeared to be the "most bang for the buck" and my experience has been all good with the exception of having to buy 100 LL. I am happy with it and my son can waste the extra money saved on the engine upgrade on his fifth year of college to get his BA.

  5. #5
    Member RocketRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    410

    Default

    <<If I wanted 2950 gw I would get the Wing-x tip tank option. It would also fit in my hangar with 40 x 16 ft doors. BTW, my skywagon is just like all the rest when considering the stated GW vs what we all know they can haul ... enough said.>>

    ocnfish - seems like no one wants to mention just how much OG they are willing to haul. I wld like to know that either here or in a PM if 180 pilots will comment.

    Got the BW mod materials plus tire and the 8.5 x 10 tires and STC to add at annual in a week or so. Hope the BW doesn't cause probs like you mentioned. The A&P says he won't know if 8.5 x 10 tires will work with the McCalluy brakes or not till he measures it. I guess.

    I think I aught to add some safety stuff first tho.

    1. The ACK 04 ELT with its own GPS antennae.

    2. The Bass retractable harnesses.

    Thanks for the info all. It helps..

    RR

  6. #6
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    Rick,
    I imagine most people are smart enough not to talk about that in an open forum not that I know anyone who ever has. Remember, you are a test pilot at 1 pound overgross and above.

    My 180 has a 3190 gross with a 1650 empty. That's 1540lbs of gas/gear/me. pponk and 86" mac. It flies ok at gross. Not the same as me and 1/4 tanks by any means. I'm guessing that much weight is overgross in your airplane..................

    That said, if you regularly need you fly overgross in your airplane, you should upgrade airplanes. There's a reason the late models have much higher gross weights. There's more structure to support it.

    If you are already looking at engine conversions and flying overgross, get the airplane that fits. I would suggest looking at a 185 or 206. (206's are fairly underrated in the off airport world)

    My .02, and its worth less than that.


    PS your mccauley brakes should work just fine with those wheels

  7. #7
    Member RocketRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Ak-Hunt

    Good advice thanks.

    Well I see the Wing-X extension gets ya to 2950 gross. How'd ya get that other 240-lbs?

    Seems like you'd have to beef up some structural components

    RR

    My example; I wanted to carry my Achilles plus floor boards plus 20-hp motor. That got me up to 2506-lbs. Gave abt 150-lbs for gear , food etc.

    So I fig hey....100-lbs over gross won't affect things hardly at all.

    I'm gonna stick with the 180B till I learn how to make her proud but I do want to investigate mods to carry more weight.

    Thanks

    Rick

  8. #8
    Member IndyCzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Just 55 miles north of ANC ... on the lake
    Posts
    351

    Default

    RR,
    Kenmore upgrade, I got the paperwork at the Alaska Airman show this spring, about 200 bucks for the paperwork and a doubler...Its issued by serial number...I have a 180K and the STC requires a doubler on the tail section and about 4 hrs of mechanic/tech work...gives you the LEGAL extra weight...

  9. #9
    Member RocketRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Indy..thanks I'll look at it.

    Also, isn't there one where you just get the STC and it gives you extra gross w/o any mods at all?

    Rr

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Kenmore's upgross STC only applies to 1964 G models and later. In other words, three window models. It will also require the big 185-style dorsal. There used to be a Cessna service kit to mod the tail but it's no longer available so you'll need to spend serious money to upgrade the tail with factory 185 parts or find a salvaged 185 to get the tail from. The STC is only applicable to EDO 2960s and Aerocet 3500s for floats. 2870s aren't approved. Probably lots of guys flying with them, though.

    I've had a Pponk engine and Kenmore gross weight increase for about 12 years. Still smiling.

    If you're going to put Gar Aero adaptors on don't you have to use Cleveland wheels? Even if you aren't required to it would be a good idea. Buy a wheel and brake kit and be done with it. Alaska Bushwheels has the best Cleveland kit prices I've found.

  11. #11
    Member ocnfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Offically .... I never fly over gross, if you ever do though remember that as you burn fuel in the C-180 your CG moves aft. When you start to run out of trim keep your speed up at least 80 mph, or what ever it takes to keep the tail flying, and no more than 20 degrees of flaps on landing, land hot ... If the tail stops flying things go south real fast, happend not too long ago for a family this summer that had the same plane at Birchwood, full fuel and 5 deceased.

    MRPID is right about the Kenmore GW increase, X-wing is the only option for my 56 and your 59.

    If you want to burn autogas, that is only legal with the O-470, as far as I know Peterson is the only one that has the STC. Downside of autogas is that it is clear ... why is that a downside? If your tank or plumbing is leaking 100ll sticks out like a sore thumb on preflight, not so for autogas. I had a leak in the passenger side tank and ran out of gas just before Turnagan arm and was able to deadstick to the road next to the mountians over there.

  12. #12
    Member RocketRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ocnfish View Post
    Offically .... I never fly over gross, if you ever do though remember that as you burn fuel in the C-180 your CG moves aft. When you start to run out of trim keep your speed up at least 80 mph, or what ever it takes to keep the tail flying, and no more than 20 degrees of flaps on landing, land hot ... If the tail stops flying things go south real fast, happend not too long ago for a family this summer that had the same plane at Birchwood, full fuel and 5 deceased.

    If you want to burn autogas, that is only legal with the O-470, as far as I know Peterson is the only one that has the STC. Downside of autogas is that it is clear ... why is that a downside? If your tank or plumbing is leaking 100ll sticks out like a sore thumb on preflight, not so for autogas. I had a leak in the passenger side tank and ran out of gas just before Turnagan arm and was able to deadstick to the road next to the mountians over there.
    Hmm I wondered about that crash. Word was it was the seat going back. Wasn't it on take off and no fuel had been burned yet? Or,...are you saying the plane was just grossly loaded with aft CG?

    Hmm....maybe I'll get some coloring fluid for the big tank. Glad you made the comment. Thanks

    Two passengers this year have said they noticed fuel fumes in the cabin. I haven't as much. That's one thing to check at this annual coming up.

    RR

  13. #13
    Member ocnfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    542

    Default

    This is secondhand but from a source with a with an increadable amount of integrety and knowledge ......

    The person in the right seat was a pilot, did both seat rails fail?

  14. #14
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ocnfish View Post
    This is secondhand but from a source with a with an increadable amount of integrety and knowledge ......

    The person in the right seat was a pilot, did both seat rails fail?
    It's usually pretty smart to wait for the ntsb. You'd want that if it's u one day. It's disrespectful.

    Thanks for understanding.

  15. #15
    Member RocketRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ocnfish View Post
    This is secondhand but from a source with a with an increadable amount of integrety and knowledge ......

    The person in the right seat was a pilot, did both seat rails fail?
    No it's just what I heard. One CFI knew someone that saw it. Just a guess I think..Hearsay or .....theresay...

    Yeah lets wait to hear the NTSB report.

    That accident was extremely hard to hear about. A real nightmare.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ocnfish View Post
    Offically .... I never fly over gross, if you ever do though remember that as you burn fuel in the C-180 your CG moves aft. When you start to run out of trim keep your speed up at least 80 mph, or what ever it takes to keep the tail flying, and no more than 20 degrees of flaps on landing, land hot ... If the tail stops flying things go south real fast
    Bad advice. Loading the airplane properly and legally is the pilot's responsibility no different than operating it properly. The reason your old 180s have lower gross capacity than later model 180s or the related 185 is structural component strength and horsepower. There's no question my 180 flies friendlier at 2600# than at 3190# but I fly it (legally) at 3190# fairly frequently and it works fine. Not as nimble but certainly not dangerous. Remember your POH speed and configuration values are provided at full gross weight. Keep your loading within published limits and you have a pilot's guide that establishes what you can expect performance-wise. The POH is required equipment and you're expected to know how to use it.

  17. #17
    Member ocnfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    542

    Default

    ok ... I will go away ......

  18. #18
    Member RocketRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ANC
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Ak-Hunt,.

    Well I see the Wing-X extension gets ya to 2950 gross. How'd ya get that other 240-lbs?

    You said: <<Pponk Runs 160 mph in my 75 180 (weighs 1650) but it's a little more than just adding bigger cylinders. >>

    I see if you have a G-K model the gross is 2800. Add 300 for the X-Wing Extension and you get 3100-lbs.

    So you have one the 180 J model.

    Hard to believe the empty weight of the 180 J model is 1650-lbs tho.

    RR

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Don't get mad. There's never a reason to land a skywagon at 80mph. Over gross wouldn't cause the plane to be anything more than sluggish. Aft CG will cause the tail to drop out but aft CG can kill you without being over gross. Fly long enough in Alaska and you'll face a situation that will require maximum performance maneuvering to turn 180* or climb to avoid trouble, or maybe you just have to nurse the plane along at slow speeds with a couple of notches of flaps searching for a place to get down because the weather's dropped to 300' and a half mile. In any case I don't think over gross or aft CG is a good idea. Cavalier attitudes toward over gross and aft CG are dangerous.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Rocket Rick, the Kenmore STC increases gross weight to 3190# on 180G through 180K models, all which originally had 2800# gross.

    The listed basic model empty weight from the factory for my 180J is 1565#. Optional equipment and accessories weight was added to that. How much do you think 180Js should weigh?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •